2025:JHHC:17845 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2025 -------- Divya Jyoti, daughter of Manish Kumar Giri, resident of Mantagarh Bazar Tand, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh ... ... Petitioner Versus Ranjeet Kumar Goswami @ Ranjeet Goswami, son of Holi Giri Goswami, resident of Kathal Kocha, Birsa Chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi ... ... Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Harshit Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh,Advocate -------- Order No. 06/ Dated: 03rd July, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed for transfer of Original Suit No. 928 of 2023 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to Family Court, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a woman, residing separately with her husband at her parental home at Ramgarh situated about 40 km. away from the district Ranchi. The husband of the petitioner (opposite party) has filed Original Matrimonial Suit under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is at the stage of evidence of opposite party, the petitioner feels inconvenience in attending the court at Ranchi due to paucity of fund and the rigor of journey. Therefore, Original Suit No. 928 of 2023 pending in the Family Court, Ranchi be transfer to Family Court, Ramgarh where two other cases are pending which were instituted by the petitioner out of which one Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 168 of 2023 under Section 341, 323, 498A, 427 & 34 of I.P.C. and the other Original Maintenance Case No. 330 of 2023 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before the Family Court, Ranchi. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has 2025:JHHC:17845 2 submitted that the suit of divorce filed by the opposite party is at the advance stage of hearing. Evidence of the plaintiff has been concluded and only evidence of defendant’s witnesses has remained to be examined for better appreciation of the case and fair trial. The suit has to be remained at Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. The opposite party is ready to bear the cost of expenses of the petitioner/wife in prosecuting the aforesaid matrimonial suit in attending the Family Court at Ranchi. Therefore, there is no valid reason to transfer the case only on the basis of convenience of the party. 5. Considering the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties and also in view of the fact that the suit came to be transferred is at the advance stage and there is no considerable distance between the two courts and the cost of expenses has also to be born by the opposite party as urged in their argument. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Arpit